the program sensibly. Having to do visit_count every time would be
: slower.
I've since done some testing. The speed-gain is only ca. 0.5%.
The difference in binary-size is however also tiny.
If, when you're back, you say you /still/ prefer to do without
visit_found, I'll prepare anoth
t visit_count() and visit_limit() but not
: visit_found(). However, if you can think of a strong agrument in
: favour of visit_found() I could be convinced.
Does the above convince you?
L8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-- | | /
+ op_and = 1;
+ break;
+
case 'b':
basename_only = 1;
break;
@@ -1225,7 +1269,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
e = LOCATE_DB;
}
- found = locate (argc - optind, &argv[optind], e, ignore_case, print,
b
ef int (*visitfunc)(const char *munged_filename,
-const char *original_filename,
+
+typedef int (*visitfunc)(struct process_data *procdata,
void *context);
struct visitor
L8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-
Op Mon, 30 May 2005 21:11:46 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
: Now for the casefolding-patch:
:
:
: Suggested ChangeLog entry:
:
: 2005-05-30 Bas van Gompel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
^^^
Oops. a ``.buzz'' wen
ABs in this and several other entries
were replaced with 8 SPCes. I suggest:
sed -i -e 's/^/'"`echo -e '\t'`"'/' ChangeLog
(or similar)
Also, by moving the last two lines above, to the top, they lose
their context (locate/locate.c).
L8r,
27;'s.
(If/when this one gets applied, I intend to submit follow-up patches.)
L8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-- | | // really is | and false bits entirely.| mail for
) | | //a 72 by 4 +
